Patna Court May 2002 Judgments
Tribani Mahto and anr. Vs. Manju Mishra and anr.
Court: Patna
Decided on: May-02-2002
S.N. Pathak, J.1. This miscellaneous appeal is directed against the judgment dated 29.4.1995 passed by the Addl. District Judge VII, Patna-cum-Claims Tribunal in Claim Case No. 45/13 of 1990/1993. The claimants of the aforesaid case have filed this appeal.2. The claimants had filed the case in the Claims Tribunal on the allegation that on 4.4.1990 at 4 p.m. the son of Tribani Mahto was knocked down by a speeding truck bearing No. WMK 9345. The Tribunal, on the basis of the evidence adduced before it, granted a compensation amount of Rs. 50,000 to the father of the deceased and his other heirs. Rs. 25,000 were paid as. interim compensation. This compensation amount was directed to be paid by the insurance company which was opposite party No. 2 in the court below and interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum was also allowed from the date of the application till realization.3. It was submitted before me by the appellants' lawyer that the deceased boy was student of class VIII and he...
Tag this Judgment!Arun Kumar Sharma Vs. State of Bihar
Court: Patna
Decided on: May-01-2002
B.K. Jha, J.1. This appeal arises from the judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge-Ist, Munger dated 11.12.1995 passed in Sessions Case No. 554 of 1994 whereby the sole appellant has been convicted under Section 302 of the I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life.2. The case of the prosecution as contained in the fardbeyan (Ext. No. 3) of the informant, Leeladhar Pradhan is that his daughter Smt. Shushma Devi was married with the appellant Arun Kumar Sharma, son of Sitaram Sharma of Pachna Road, Lakhisarai Bazar, District Munger about four years back to the occurrence. After marriage this appellant started putting pressure upon her to bring one motorcycle and one colour T.V. from her father and used to threaten oust her from the house in case of non-fulfilment of dowry demand. Whenever the daughter of the informant used to visit the house of the informant she complained about the dowry demand and her torture at the hands of her husband-appellant and in-...
Tag this Judgment!Rishabh Raushan and ors. Vs. State of Bihar and ors.
Court: Patna
Decided on: May-01-2002
1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 18.9.2001, passed by a learned single Judge, whereby the writ application being C.W.J.C. No. 12044 of 2001 filed by the appellants, who are regular students of Maya Chhota Government High School, Gopalganj, challenging the order contained in letter dated 9.6.2001 and the letter dated 27.6.2001, issued by the respondent-Bihar School Examination Board (hereinafter referred to as 'the Board') cancelling their registration as well as the result of the secondary examination of 2001, has been dismissed.2. The question, which falls for consideration in this case, is as to whether a regular student has also to appear in the preliminary test for being sent up before appearing in the final examination conducted by the Board or not?3. It is an admitted position that the secondary examination is conducted by the Board under the provisions of the Bihar School Examination Board Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). Section 17 of the Act...
Tag this Judgment!Seetaram Singh Vs. the State of Bihar and ors.
Court: Patna
Decided on: May-01-2002
R.N. Prasad, J.1. The petitioner is Supervisor grade-III. He was in the scale of Rs. 975-1540/-. He was granted first time bound promotion vide letter dated 28.10.1994. Annexure-C with effect from 1.1.1991 and was allowed pay scale of Rs. 1200-1800/-. The petitioner was getting pay-scale of Rs. 1200-1900/-. However, the order dated 18.1.2002, Annexure-10, was issued wherein it has been alleged that Supervisor grade-l I was wrongly mentioned against the petitioner and he was wrongly allowed pay-scale of Rs. 4000-6000/-. Accordingly, the same was corrected and he was allowed pay-scale of Rs. 3050-4590/-. The petitioner has challenged the order, Annexure-10 in this writ petition on the ground that order impugned is arbitrary. There was nothing wrong in granting the pay-scale to the petitioner.2. A counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondents wherein it has been stated that petitioner was Supervisor grade-III in the scale of Rs. 975-1540/-. The petitioner and six other Superv...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›